A recently released academic report claiming the candidacy of GOP presidential nod Donald Trump has led to a mini-holocaust against Muslims in America is riddled with errors and exaggerations. Yet Muslim pressure groups are actively pushing it out to the media to support the notion that Muslims are the ones under violent attack.

Sponsored by the Saudi prince who tried to bribe then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani into saying U.S. foreign policy was to blame for 9/11, the “special report” — “When Islamophobia Turns Violent: The 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections” — is designed to gin up sympathy for Muslims and shut down terrorism investigations in the Muslim community, as well as the presidential debate over Muslim immigration.

“During the course of 2015, there were approximately 174 reported incidents of anti-Muslim violence and vandalism, including: 12 murders; 29 physical assaults; 50 threats against persons or institutions; 54 acts of vandalism or destruction of property; 8 arsons; and 9 shootings or bombings, among other incidents,” the 73-page report claims. “The number of incidents in 2015 is also higher than the total number of anti-Muslim hate crimes reported in 2014: 154.”

Sounds terrible. But it’s not what it seems.

The only accurate part of the statement is that there were, in fact, 154 confirmed anti-Muslim incidents in 2014, according to FBI crime tables. That’s down from 135 cases in 2013 and 130 in 2012, and a far cry from the total number in 2001, when the FBI investigated 481 hate crimes against Muslims.

Even that high number isn’t as bad as it seems. Of the 554 victims of anti-Islamic crimes reported in 2001 — a year that included the murder of almost 3,000 Americans by 19 Muslim hijackers — more than half (296) were victims not of aggravated assault or even simple assault but of “intimidation.”

According to the Justice Department, hate crimes against Muslims have fallen dramatically since 9/11; and if the trend holds, more than likely there will be another drop in 2015, Georgetown’s alarmism notwithstanding.

Its tally of 174 hate crimes last year is unofficial, unconfirmed and, as it turns out, grossly inflated. Its source is not the FBI, which won’t release actual data for 2015 hate crimes until November, but the media. “These incidents were reported by local and national news outlets,” it admits in a footnote in the report.

But Georgetown doesn’t even get that right. A review of press accounts of incidents cited as anti-Muslim hate crimes reveal that in several cases the authors of the Georgetown report misrepresented what was reported by the media, claiming as hates crimes cases that were never investigated as hate crimes.

In fact, some of the Muslims the authors claim were murdered because of their religion were in fact killed during a robbery. Hatred for their faith had nothing to do with it.

UTT’s Chris Gaubatz testified on Capitol Hill Tuesday before a U.S. Senate hearing on the use of the term “Radical Islam” in discussing the terrorism threat to the United States.

Mr. Gaubatz set the stage with laying out the threat America faces from the Global Islamic Movement:

“UTT is the only organization in America which trains law enforcement, intelligence professionals, military, and leaders on the threat from the Global Islamic Movement, the doctrine of jihadi groups, and how to identify, investigate, and dismantle them. At UTT, we hold the firm belief that in order to defeat the Global Jihad, we must understand the enemy. US military war fighting doctrine, specifically the , ‘Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield Manual’, states war-planners must begin all analysis of the enemy threat with (1) who the enemy says they are, and (2) why they are fighting us. That becomes the basis for determining the enemy threat doctrine, which, in the case of jihadis, is sharia – Islamic law. Universally, the enemy – jihadis – whether they are ISIS, Al Qaeda, or the Muslim Brotherhood, all state they are Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish an Islamic State (Caliphate) under sharia.”

After detailing the Muslim Brotherhood’s dangerous doctrine, Mr. Gaubatz related his personal experiences working undercover at Hamas offices in the U.S. (CAIR):

“During my time conducting undercover research as an intern with Hamas, both at CAIR MD/VA in Herndon, VA, and CAIR National in Washington DC, I preserved documents that revealed Hamas doing business as CAIR:

*Conspired to cover-up fraud committed by one of their attorneys *Discussed coordinating with Bin Laden and his associates *Placed staffers and interns inside congressional offices *Conspired to influence congress, specifically judiciary, intelligence, and homeland security committees *Impact congressional districts, tasking each Hamas Chapter with influencing at least two legislators *Ordered books from the Saudi embassy on the virtue of jihad and martyrdom *Worked with a Muslim law enforcement officer to influence a major terrorism investigation by accessing a classified federal police database and tipping off the suspect

“The current administration and the US national security apparatus continues to use leaders of Muslim Brotherhood groups like ISNA, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), CAIR, and others to provide direct input into American foreign policy and domestic counter-terrorism strategies.”

With a strong finish, Mr. Gaubatz made clear the dire threat America faces if we do not reverse course immediately and address the enemy.

“According to our enemy – the Global Islamic Movement, made up of many groups including Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Tabligi Jamaat, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hizbollah, many nation states including Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many others – they all seek to impose sharia on the planet. It is also the blueprint from which they create their war-fighting strategies. From a U.S. war-fighting perspective, that naturally makes sharia the enemy threat doctrine and adherents to sharia a direct threat to the Republic. Until American leaders and national security professionals identify the threat and formulate policies and strategies that address adherents to this ideology we will continue on our current path of defeat and eventually lose this war here at home as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

In the wake of Sunday morning’s devastating and monumental Islamist terrorist attack that killed 49 men and women at a gay nightclub in Orlando, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) convened a news conference to condemn the bloodshed.

It posted excerpts, presumably the parts CAIR most wants people to see, on YouTube.

It marks yet another missed opportunity for American Islamists to engage fellow Muslims in a debate about their faith’s more incendiary commands. Instead, CAIR and the other assembled speakers spent more time telling non-Muslims what to think. Several speakers also seemingly contradicted one other regarding Islam’s view of homosexuality.

“Homophobia, transphobia and Islamophobia are interconnected systems of oppression. And we cannot dismantle one without dismantling the others…,” said CAIR co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad.

Saif Inam of the Muslim Public Affairs Council was more impassioned.
“To the LGBTQ community, let me be very clear. The American Muslim community stands with you. We are your allies” who “stand shoulder to shoulder with you.”

Two other speakers, Naeem Baig of the Islamic Circle of North America, and Abu Nahidian of Virginia’s Manassas Mosque, referenced Islam’s prohibition on homosexuality, though they said that it did not justify violence against gay people.

“Our issue here is not about the LGBT community. It is totally un-Islamic to do such a ghastly act, and not to mention the level of aggression and violence that followed,” Baig said, quickly pivoting to his concern that the slaughter at the Pulse nightclub reflects poorly upon Muslims: “It brings total chaos in society and Muslims now would have to undeservedly carry this crime on their heads.”

Nahidian compared gays and lesbians to drunks and people who consume pork. Islam prohibits many activities, he said, but “that does not mean that we have to go ahead and attack every bar because we are against drinking, every supposedly, grocery store because we are against the porks and eating that. Go ahead and attack all kind of areas that it is against our religion. No. We have to live with the people and we have to dialogue only and talk. We are not allowed to take arms against anyone.”

Terrorist Omar Mateen’s father echoed the message in a statement early Monday. “God will punish those involved in homosexuality,” he said, adding it is “not an issue that humans should deal with.”

Nahidian, meanwhile, stands out as an odd representative for an event aimed at enhancing the image of Muslims in America. He maintained close ties with Iran, and during a 2010 anti-Israel rally in Washington’s Dupont Circle, he insisted the 9/11 attacks were “not done by Muslims. It is done by the plot of the Zionists in order to justify to occupy the land of the Muslims such as Afghanistan, such as Iraq, such as Pakistan, now moving on to the rest of the areas. They plot and they scheme and no doubt God is plotting and scheming against them too.”

Szremski also is a prominent and vocal advocate for Rasmieh Odeh, the Palestinian woman convicted in a 1969 terrorist attack in Jerusalem that killed two college students. Odeh and an accomplice have publicly discussed their roles in the attack.

Meanwhile none of the speakers mentioned that attacks targeting gay people – often by throwing them off the tops of buildings – are frightfully common in areas controlled by ISIS, the group to which Mateen pledged allegiance during his slaughter.

Awad said ISIS claims to speak for Islam, but “the 1.7 billion [Muslims in the world] are united in rejecting their extremism and their interpretation and their acts and senseless violence.”

The evidence says otherwise.

In 2014, the Washington Postlisted 10 countries where homosexuality can lead to the death penalty. They are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Qatar, Nigeria, Mauritania and the United Arab Emirates. In some of those states, any sex outside of marriage is prohibited.

After the Orlando attack, political scientist Ian Bremmer noted the overwhelming majorities in Muslim countries which exhibit intolerance toward gay people. In addition, more than half of British Muslims surveyed earlier this year said homosexuality should be outlawed.

It was widely reported before CAIR’s news conference that in April, a mosque near Orlando hosted an Iranian-born cleric who was on videotape saying, “Death is the sentence” for homosexuality. If it was mentioned during the news conference, CAIR cut it out of the video it posted on YouTube.

In 2008, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) flagged the condemnations of Abd Al-Qader Shiba Al-Hamad, a Saudi scholar in Medina, who called homosexuality “a great corruption” and a “heinous crime.” He then recounts the various punishments discussed in the Quran and among the followers of Islam’s prophet Muhammad. They range from “merely killing them or burning them” to beheading to climbing the highest mountain and rolling “them down the mountain until they are killed.”

There was no recognition during CAIR’s news conference that prominent imams espouse such violent rhetoric toward gay people. Instead, two people invoked the Quranic passage that states, “Whoever saves a life, it’s as if they have saved the life of all of humanity. And if you take a life, it’s as if you have taken the life of all of humanity.”

They stopped short of the next verse, which commands, “the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.”

Similarly, Rizwan Jaka, a national board member for the Islamic Society of North America, noted the Quran’s instruction that “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.” But no one tried to tell impressionable Muslims, like Mateen, why that is more relevant today than the verse that tells them to “kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush.”

It isn’t that difficult. The American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, whose founder Zuhdi Jasser has been attacked by CAIR, issued a statement expressing its sorrow over the Orlando attack and committing during the holy month of Ramadan to “triple down on acknowledging the deep reforms necessary and the responsibility of every Muslim in countering the ideologies that inspire these Islamist savages … Make no mistake. We are again horrifically reminded that our nation and the free world are in a long war that has been declared upon us by global militant Islamists and their Salafi-Jihadi ideology.

“Understanding this ideology demands that we finally move beyond the false ‘lone wolf’ and ‘violent extremism’ narrative and counter the enemy’s ideology of Islamism and its jihadism.”

After terrorist attacks like Orlando, San Bernardino, and too many others, CAIR’s message focuses on non-Muslims and their thoughts on Islam. Perhaps they would better serve the public by encouraging Muslims to relay to other Muslims why the theological underpinnings that drive the bloodshed are wrong. When other Muslims try to do so, they too often are derided as sellouts.

How is it that nearly fifteen (15) years after 9/11 none (ie ZERO) of the Islamic advisors to the United States government have shared with our leaders the Quranic concept of abrogation, the definition of “jihad” in sharia (Islamic Law), or the fact sharia obliges jihad until the entire world is under sharia?

It is because sharia obliges Muslims to lie to non-Muslims when the goal is obligatory (eg Jihad), and makes it a capital crime for Muslims to teach other Muslims anything about Islam which is not a part of authoritative Islam.

This means if American leadership wants to know the enemy and understand the threat, they need to stop listening to suit-wearing jihadis and read what Muslims teach when they are teaching other Muslims.

Al Qaeda Leader Anwar al Awlaki (killed by U.S. in 2011) speaking at the U.S. Capitol

Muslims are Obliged to Lie to Non-Muslims

Um Dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law, r8.0-r8.1, Lying/Permissible Lying: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives…it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”

Jihad is obligatory.

It is a Capital Crime in Islam for Muslims to Teach Muslims Anything False About Islam

The following are acts which constitute “leaving Islam” (Apostasy): “to deny any verse of the Koran or anything by which scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it…to deny the obligatory character of something which by a consensus of Muslims is a part of Islam…to be sarcastic about any ruling in Sacred Law; or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world.” [Um dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law, o8.7, Apostasy]

“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” [Um dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law, 08.1]

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller III presenting an award at FBI Headquarters to Muslim Brotherhood Sharia scholar Imam Yahya Hendi (Fiqh Council of North America)

“Someone raised among Muslims who denies the obligatoriness of the prayer, zakat, fasting Ramadan, the pilgrimage, or the unlawfulness of wine and adultery, or denies something else upon which there is scholarly consensus and which is necessarily known as being of the religion thereby becomes an unbeliever and is executed for his unbelief.” [Um dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law, f1.3]

Former DHS Secretary swears in Muslim Brother Mohamed Elibiary to the Homeland Security Advisory Committee and granted him a secret clearance

When the leaders of Hamas in the U.S. (doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations – CAIR) were recorded by the FBI during their national meeting in Philadelphia in October 1993, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad stated: “We will recognize the source of any message which comes out of us…you send two messages; one to the Americans and one to the Muslims.”

They have been doing it ever since, and our leaders appear just dumb enough and criminally negligent enough to believe them, continue acting on them, and putting Americans in greater and greater danger.

Lesson learned: Stop listening to what Muslims tell us Islam says, and start reading the books they use to teach each other.

In a March 24 New York Times article, “Feeling G.O.P. Peril, Muslims Try to Get Out Vote,” Alan Rappeport wrote about how three Muslim groups and organizations in the United States are organizing to elect Democratic candidates this fall because of perceived hostility toward American Muslims by Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

Given the strong liberal bias of the New York Times, it was not a surprise when this article failed to mention that the alleged “Islamophobic” statements by Senator Cruz and Mr. Trump were in fact criticisms of radical Islam and President Obama’s refusal to name or confront this threat.

It was surprising that all of the Muslim groups cited by Rappeport have ties to radical Islam that he failed to mention.

The most stunning example of this is the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Virginia which Rappeport says has been holding voter education workshops to convince its members to vote against Republican presidential candidates.

Rappeport neglected to mention the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center’s notorious past. Anwar al-Awlaki, a key official with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2011, was Imam at this mosque between January 2001 and April 2002. Two of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped there. There also have been reports of violent materials found in this mosque.

The Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center may be the best possible example proving the need for Senator Cruz’s call to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods.

Rappaport also omitted the Islamist radicalism of other American Muslim groups cited in his article he says are encouraging mosques to turn themselves into voter registration centers.

One is the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) which claims to be “America’s largest Muslim civil rights organization.” However, its record shows this is far from the case.

CAIR was named in 2007 as a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case — the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history.

Two days after the Dec. 2, 2015 terrorist shooting in San Bernardino, Hussam Ayloush, the executive director of CAIR’s Los Angeles chapter, tried to blame U.S. policy for this deadly attack when he told CNN’s “New Day,” “some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West have fueled that extremism . . . We are partly responsible.”

In July 2014, while Hamas was firing rockets at Israel from Gaza, attendees at a CAIR-Florida-organized protest praised the Hamas attacks at a rally in Miami by chanting, “We are Hamas!” “We are Jihad!”

Two other Muslim American Group cited by Rappaport, The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), also have radical Islamist ties that he did not mention.

ICNA preaches a global caliphate and Islamic shariah law over America to its members and reportedly has an “ultimate goal of the establishment of Islam as the sole basis of global society and governance” according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism. ICNA also was named as a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case.

The USCMO is an umbrella organization of American Muslim groups. CAIR and ICNA are two of its founding members. Another founding member, The Muslim American Society, has beendescribed by federal prosecutors as the “overt arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.

In a related development, Hillary Clinton used an appearance at a panel last week sponsored by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) to condemn Republican presidential candidates for pitting groups against one another and giving in to fear. In reporting Clinton’s remarks, no one in the mainstream media mentioned MPAC’s extremism and how it has followed a consistent pattern of defending designated terrorist organizations and their supporters, opposing U.S. counterterrorism efforts and spouting anti-Semitic rhetoric.

The battle to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda requires recognizing and defeating a radical ideology that is at war with Western civilization: radical Islam.

Alan Rappeport’s article and Hillary Clinton’s MPAC panel proves that they, like President Obama, are still in denial about this threat.

Jihadist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris have Americans on edge. Yet part of the Obama White House’s response to the attacks has been to invite Islamist groups that routinely demonize the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies to the White House to discuss a religious discrimination. “If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away,” President Obama said in his speech following the San Bernardino attack.

But partnering with such organizations sends the wrong message to the American people, said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AFID).

“I think it says a lot when the president uses those organizations that have an ACLU-type mentality. They should have a seat at the table. That’s fine,” Jasser said. “But not to include groups, which have completely different focuses about counter-radicalization, counter-Islamism creates this monolithic megaphone for demonization of our government and demonization of America that ends up radicalizing our community.”

A White House spokesperson acknowledged to the Investigative Project on Terrorism that the Dec. 14 meeting on countering anti-Muslim animus included Hassan Shibly, executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Florida chapter. The same forum – attended by Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes – also included Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates; Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab-American Institute (AAI); Mohamed Magid, imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS); and Hoda Hawa, director of policy and advocacy with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) among others.

The White House guests, or the organizations they represent, have long histories of criticizing counter-terror investigations. CAIR leads the pack. Its Philadelphia chapter is advertising a workshop, “The FBI and Entrapment in the Muslim Community,” which features a spider with an FBI badge on its back, spinning a web of entrapment around an image of a mosque. The workshop “provides the tools needed to prevent entrapment of community members to become terrorists in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Since 9/11, CAIR has repeatedly taken the side of defendants accused of financing or plotting attacks, calling their prosecutions a “witch hunt” against the Muslim community. For example, CAIR denounced the prosecution of Sami Al-Arian, who turned out to be the secretary of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s governing board, as “politically motivated” and a result of the “Israelization of American policy and procedures.”

A year ago, CAIR similarly protested the incarceration of Aafia Siddiqui, aka “Lady Al Qaeda” – convicted in 2010 of trying to kill two FBI agents. The protest came after the Islamic State (ISIS) offered to spare the lives of executed American photojournalist James Foley and aid worker Kayla Mueller in exchange for Siddiqui’s release.

CAIR also denounced the December 2001 shutdown of the Holy Land Foundation for Hamas support, saying, “…there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam.”

Demonizing law enforcement and spreading “the idea that America and Western societies [are] anti-Muslim – the whole Islamophobia mantra is part of the early steps of radicalization so that Muslims get separated out of society,” Jasser said. “These groups certainly aren’t on the violent end of the Islamist continuum, but if there’s a conveyer belt that goes towards radicalization then it certainly starts with this siege and separatist mentality.”

CAIR has used such inflammatory imagery and rhetoric for years, with its San Francisco chapter removing a poster urging Muslims to “Build a Wall of Resistance – Don’t Talk to the FBI” in 2011 after the IPT reported on it.

Later that year, a CAIR-New York official told a Muslim audience that FBI agents would break the law to force them to talk. That includes threats and “blackmail, seriously blackmail; that’s illegal,” Lamis Deek told the audience. “But they’ll do it.”

Jasser blames CAIR and others which spread similar rhetoric for the increased fear of Islam and Muslims in America since 9/11 because they refuse to discuss Islamic extremism and the role Muslims have in fixing the problem.

“This creates a climate where people don’t trust us to be part of the solution,” Jasser said. “People say that if you aren’t part of the solution then you are part of the problem, which creates more fear and distrust.”

Neither Jasser nor the AIFD, which advocates for “liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state,” were invited to the White House meeting. Also shut out were Jasser’s colleagues in the new Muslim Reform Movement, whose members “reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam” and stand “for secular governance, democracy and liberty. Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have rights.”

The White House did not reply to a request for comment about Jasser’s characterization of these groups; however, it previously said it engaged CAIR because of “their work on civil rights issues” despite the group’s Hamas ties.

“It’s a very confusing time and circumstance when you have the White House dealing with people who have fronted for the Muslim Brotherhood and are the spokespeople for Hamas in the United States and you bring them in for a conference at the White House and say they are supposed to speak for the Muslim community in America,” Revell said. “It’s unhelpful to have the White House essentially fronting for groups that want to make it harder to reach the jihadists in our society and in effect flush them out.”

Khera’s group Muslim Advocates has a pending lawsuit against the New York Police Department regarding its surveillance of mosques and other Islamic institutions using undercover police officers and informants.

“One of our key priorities at Muslim Advocates is ending racial and religious profiling by law enforcement,” Khera says in a YouTube video supporting the suit. “We’ve done work to combat profiling by the FBI, by Customs and Border Protection and now more recently we’ve had concerns about the way the New York Police Department – the nation’s largest police department – has been conducting itself.”

Like CAIR, Khera has called the FBI’s sting operations and informants against potential jihadists “entrapment operations” that rope in individuals who might otherwise never engage in terrorist activity.

CAIR’s Shibly also used the entrapment narrative in a June 2014 blog post in which he argued that the “FBI entrapment program targeting the Muslim community” was an example of tyranny. Many other CAIR representatives, such as Michigan director Dawud Walid, previously alleged the FBI has “recruited more so-called extremist Muslims than al-Qaida themselves.”

AAI stops short of embracing the entrapment narrative but labels surveillance programs by the NYPD and other government agencies “unconstitutional, ineffective, and counterproductive.” New York’s Mayor Bill De Blasio disbanded the NYPD unit responsible for infiltrating the city’s mosques and Muslim gathering places looking for potential terrorists in April 2014 under pressure from Muslim groups.

Another group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which counts Magid as a member, published an article in 2008 written by Hatem al-Haj, a member of its fatwa committee, giving religious justification for not cooperating with authorities. Al-Haj wrote it was “impermissible” for Muslims to work with the FBI because of the “harm they inflict on Muslims.”

However, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which formerly accused the FBI of entrapment, conceded in 2013 that informants can be useful detecting terror cells and keeping them off balance.

“To be fair, informants at times can be effective in counterterrorism investigations even against cellular structures. Because terrorist groups are concerned about their operational security, fear of informants can create and increase tensions within a terrorist cell. As a result, it may generate enough paranoia that a cell may abandon a planned operation,” MPAC said in its 2013 report “Building Bridges to Strengthen America.”

Looking for jihadis before they strike is a bit like looking for a “needle in a haystack,” so sting operations are useful in finding them before it’s too late, according to Revell. He says such operations can be useful in preventing the next San Bernardino.

“If you don’t find them when they are talking jihad and you have to wait until they take an action then it’s too late to be able to prevent casualties and ensure that the public is safe,” Revell said. “There certainly is knowledge among those looking to do any type of jihadi activity that there is a force out there that is countering them and that they need to try to cover their activities to the greatest extent possible.”

In the past year, the Islamic State (ISIS) has published at least two documents instructing its jihadis how to evade being lured into stings by the FBI or other law-enforcement agencies. The ISIS manual “Safety and Security guidelines of the Lone Wolf Mujahideen” devotes a chapter to evading FBI stings by testing the weapons they receive prior to using them in an attack.

Khera’s organization stood front and center in 2011 when Muslim groups called on the Obama administration to purge FBI training materials that they deemed offensive. Shecomplained in a Sept. 15, 2011 letter that counterterrorism materials then being used to train FBI agents about Islam used “woefully misinformed statements about Islam and bigoted stereotypes about Muslims.” Such allegedly misinformed statements included characterizing zakat – the almsgiving tax mandate on all Muslims – as a “funding mechanism for combat” and that “Accommodation and compromise between [Islam and the West] are impermissible and fighting [for Muslims] is obligatory.”

Yet numerous Muslim commentators, including from the Herndon, Va.-based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), describe zakat as a funding mechanism for jihad. A footnote for Surah 9:60 found in “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an” published with editorial assistance from IIIT, says that zakat can be used among other things to help “(4) those who are struggling and striving in Allah’s Cause by teaching or fighting or in duties assigned to them by the righteous Imam, who are thus unable to earn their ordinary living.”

The AMJA issued a fatwa in August 2011 stating that zakat could be used to “support legitimate Jihad activities.”

Top Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi similarly states in his book, Fiqh of Jihad, that zakat may be spent to finance “the liberation of Muslim land from the domination of the unbelievers,” particularly against Israel and India in Kashmir.

Numerous Islamic charities have been cited or closed down in connection with terrorist financing since the September 11 attacks. Qaradawi’s actions back up his words. In 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the Union of Good, a network of charities headed by Qaradawi, for Hamas fundraising. That same year a federal court jury convicted the founders of the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation (HLF) for illegally financing Hamas.

“The government’s policy has inflicted considerable harm,” MPAC’s Salam al-Marayatiwrote in 2001 after federal authorities closed the Benevolence International Fund (BIF). “By effectively shutting down these charities, it has given Americans the false impression that American Muslims are supporting terrorists. It has also given the Muslim world a similarly false impression that America is intolerant of a religious minority.”

In the end, the White House’s decision to empower these groups sends a mixed message to the American people that it isn’t fully interested in rooting out the causes of jihadist terror and preventing future attacks.

The Free Beacon was the first to report it here. The story was also carried by Breitbart here.

In July 2014, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN) filed a similar bill called the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2014.

The Muslim Brotherhood has already been designated a terrorist organization in Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

UTT encourages all readers to review this bill as it serves as a good summary of the violent history and nature of the Muslim Brotherhood. You can read a copy of it HERE.

The prominent Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States include, but are not limited to:

Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and all it’s subsidiaries; International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT); Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Muslim Students Association (MSA); Muslim American Society (MAS); North American Islamic Trust (NAIT); Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA); Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA); North American Imams Federation (NAIM); U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO); American Muslims for Palestine (AMP); American Muslim Alliance (AMA); Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA); Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA); Muslim Legal Fund of America; Council on Islamic Education (CIE)/Institute on Religion and Civic Values (IRCV); Holy Dove Foundation; Gulen Institute and all related schools; Turquoise Foundation; International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO); Minaret of Freedom Institute; Mosque Cares; Mosque Foundation (IL); Muslim Communities Association; Islamic Associations of Palestine (IAP); and over 80% of the nearly 2200 Islamic Centers/Mosques in all 50 states.

***

I encourage you to go to John Guandolo’s Research & Resources page where he has provided a wealth of information on the Global Muslim Brotherhood Jihad Movement. The very last item in the menu titled “What can I do?” is excellent.

The Federal Bureau Of Investigation has suspended the unveiling of a new counter-radicalization website designed for kids after fringe Islamic advocacy organizations said the anti-terror programming discriminates against Muslims.

The FBI website titled, “Don’t Be A Puppet,” was scheduled to go live Monday morning but has been suspended indefinitely after fierce opposition by Islamic groups, the Washington Post reports.

According to reports, the program was designed to lead children and teens through games that were designed to help them identify potential extremists. The FBI initiative also sought to help young men and women steer clear from the radical ideologies that lead people to join Islamic extremist groups.

A spokesman with the FBI told the New York Times late Sunday, prior to the program’s scheduled release: “The F.B.I. is developing a website designed to provide awareness about the dangers of violent extremist predators on the Internet, with input from students, educators and community leaders.”

Some Muslim leaders who were invited to beta-test the program were outraged that the FBI would take the time to develop counterterror initiatives.

“The greatest threat facing American schoolchildren today is gun violence,” Arjun Sethi, a Georgetown Law professor who was invited to screen the program over the summer, told the New York Times. “It’s not Muslim extremism.”

Abed Ayoub, the ADC’s policy director, said his meetings with the FBI over the program were “very tense.” “If this is shown to middle and high-school students, it’s going to result in bullying of these children,” Ayoub said.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Muslim advocacy organization that wasfounded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, applauded the FBI’s decision to suspend the program..

MPAC Policy Director Hoda Hawa said in a press release:

While we welcome efforts to promote the safety and security of our nation, tools like this that improperly characterize American Muslims as a suspect community with its targeted focus and stereotypical depictions stigmatize Muslim students (or those perceived as such) and can actually exasperate the problem by leading to bullying, bias, and religious profiling of students.

MPAC wrote a follow-up letter to the FBI, declaring that the bureau has no business “educating our youth on countering violent extremism.” Creating programs that attempt to counter Islamic radicalism “can lead to bullying, bias, misperception, as well as racial and religious profiling of students,” the letter added.

ISIS is recruiting young Muslims from around the globe to Jihad, and the White House apparently doesn’t understand why

How can the Obama Administration miss the obvious? Part of the answer lies in the groups “partnering” with, or advising, the White House on these issues. Groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council or the Islamic Society of North America insist that there should be no more focus at the Summit on radical Islam than on any other violent movements, even as radical Islamic movements continue to expand their influence in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Nigeria, and elsewhere.

Amplifying a poor choice of Muslim outreach partners, however, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have argued in recent days that economic grievances, a lack of opportunities, and countries with “bad governance” are to blame for the success of groups such as ISIS in recruiting Muslims to their cause. Yet, if this were true, why do so many young Muslims who live in societies with excellent governance—Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, the United States—either join ISIS or engage in Jihadist violence in their own countries? Why do young Muslims with promising professional futures embark on the path of Jihad?

Neither the Summit partners nor the U.S. Administration can effectively answer these questions.

Both Denmark and the Netherlands have “good governance.” Denmark and the Netherlands not only offer free health insurance but also free housing to Muslim refugees, along with high-quality education for their children. This should produce an outpouring of gratitude by young Muslims towards the host society, and no Jihadists.

Yet there are dozens of Jihadists hailing from the Netherlands and a recent attack in Copenhagen was committed by a man who was raised in Denmark and had effectively enjoyed years of Danish hospitality.

The question is not limited to Europe. Minnesota, for instance, is hardly a state with “bad governance.” Minnesota offers ample opportunity for immigrants willing to work hard. Yet more than a dozen young men from the Twin Cities area have joined the Jihadist movement in recent years.

How can Barack Obama or John Kerry explain this? Based on President Obama’s public statements and John Kerry’s analysis in The Wall Street Journal, they cannot.

It is worth remembering Aafia Siddiqui, the M.I.T.-educated neuroscientist who could have enjoyed a prestigious and lucrative career in the bio-tech industry but instead chose to embrace radical Islam, eventually becoming known as “Lady Al-Qaida.”

Or think of the three Khan siblings who recently sought to leave Chicago in order to go live in Syria under the rule of ISIS. The Khan sister, intelligent and studious, had planned to become a physician. The siblings were intercepted before they could fly out of the country, and prosecutors argue they wanted to join armed Jihad. Defense attorneys have a different explanation, stating the siblings desperately wanted to live under a society ruled by Shariah law—under the rule of Allah’s laws, without necessarily wanting to commit acts of violence.

It is this motivation—the sincere desire to live under Islamic religious laws, and the concomitant willingness to use violence to defend the land of Islam and expand it—that has led thousands of Western Muslims, many of them young and intelligent—and not the oft-described “losers”—to leave a comfortable professional and economic future in the West in order to join ISIS under gritty circumstances.

In its general strategy, the U.S. Administration confounds two things. It is true that in “failed states” criminal networks, cartels, and terrorist groups can operate with impunity. Strengthening central governments will reduce safe havens for terror networks. Secretary Kerry’s argument in The Wall Street Journal is different, however, namely: If we improve governance in countries with “bad governance,” then fewer young people will become “violent extremists.” That’s a different argument and not a plausible one. In fact, it’s a really unpersuasive argument. Muslims leave bright, promising futures to join ISIS out of a sense of sincere religious devotion, the wish to live under the laws of Allah instead of the laws of men.

In reading Kerry’s piece, I am glad that in the late 1940s the U.S. had people such as George Kennan employed in its service to see the Communist threat clearly and describe it clearly. But where is today’s Kennan in this administration? Who in the U.S. government is willing to describe the threat of radical Islam without fear of causing offense to several aggressive Islamic lobby groups?

American policymakers do not yet understand Islamism or what persuades young Muslims to join Jihad: sincere religious devotion based on the core texts of Islam, in particular early Islam’s politicized and aggressive period in Medina (compared to Islam’s spiritual and ascetic period in Mecca).

How does one tackle misguided religious devotion of young Muslims? The answer lies in reforming Islam profoundly—not radical Islam, but mainstream Islam; its willingness to merge Mosque and State, religion, and politics; and its insistence that its elaborate system of Shariah law supersedes civil laws created by human legislators. In such a reform project lies the hope for countering Islamism. No traditional Islamic lobbying group committed to defending the reputation of Islam will recommend such a policy to the U.S. government. Yet until American policymakers grapple with the need for such reform, the real problem within Islam will remain unresolved.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the founder of the AHA Foundation and the author of Infidel, Nomad, and the forthcoming Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation, to be published next spring.

You may understandably think of it as an ISIS jobs fair, but the ongoing confab in Washington is officially known as President Obama’s “summit” on “Countering Violent Extremism.” That being the case, many Americans seem surprised at the appearance of Salam al-Marayati, leader of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). After all, the White House is having a public hissy fit over the upcoming speech to Congress by Obama’s bête noire, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. An odd time, one might think, for the POTUS to be so chummy with a Muslim activist best know for theorizing, right after the 9/11 attacks, that “we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.”

But National Review readers will not be surprised. Marayati and MPAC figured in my 2010 book on the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. operations – The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America (“grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted verbatim from an internal Brotherhood memo that describes the Islamists’ objective to infiltrate and destroy our country). And three years ago, I profiled Marayati and MPAC in this NRO column.

There is a reason why Obama’s summit is striking all the wrong chords with the public: strangely sympathetic to Islamist sensibilities and grievances at the very time when rampaging jihadists, while quoting Islamic scripture, are barbarically slaughtering their enemies and conducting a pogrom against Christians (there being no Jews left to mass-murder in Syria, Iraq and Libya).

The reason is that the summit serves exactly the same purpose as is served by MPAC and Marayati: It is the nexus between Islamists and Leftists.

For the Left, radical Islamic terrorism cannot be called “radical Islamic terrorism”; it must be called “violent extremism,” to avoid offending the Left’s Islamist allies. Still, while the labeling of terrorism may be problematic, the fact of terrorism is an opportunity – a crisis that, like all crises, can be used to advance the “social justice” agenda.

Just have a look at President Obama’s op-ed in the Los Angeles Times this week. ISIS and al-Qaeda are on the march, so what does the president suppose this is the occasion for? “Our focus [in the “summit on countering violent extremism”] will be on empowering local communities.”

The public is worried about our national security because, after six years of Obama, jihadists have more safe-haven than ever to plot and train for attacks against America, Israel and Western Europe. Obama, however, sees the situation as grist for a large-scale exercise in community-organizing: A summit that gathers “governments, civil society groups, and community leaders from more than 60 nations” to address “the anger that festers when people feel that injustice and corruption leave them no chance of improving their lives.” By the president’s lights, what causes terrorism is not sharia supremacist ideology, something that is not to be discussed. Instead, “anger” over “legitimate grievances” — that always turn out to be the same grievances the Left grieves over – makes young Muslims vulnerable to “exploitation” by al Qaeda and ISIS.

For their part, Islamists share the Left’s affinity for muscular government that suffocates individual liberty. They are also anxious to gull Westerners into seeing their grievances as driven by wayward American policies rather than sharia principles. That makes an alliance with the Left a good fit – notwithstanding important differences on such matters as abortion and the rights of women and homosexuals (differences that allies can set aside when defeating a common opponent is the higher objective).

Even in Washington D.C., there’s sometimes at least one person willing to attend an international summit and speak plainly. In the case of the Countering Violent Extremism Summit promoted by President Barack Obama, the common sense came express-delivered from our allies to the North. In his public announcement, Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness The Honorable Steven Blaney said:

The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and its allies. Individuals returning home after travelling abroad to take part in terrorist activities present a serious security threat to Canada with newly-acquired abilities to carry out domestic attacks, as well as to recruit and radicalize others. As we all have seen, Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society and the values it represents. That is why our Government has put forward measures that protect Canadians against all forms of terrorism.

Unlike the President who is at pains to explain in convoluted terms how “we are not at war with Islam”, and how ISIS and its fellow travelers are “perverting” their religion (something that IS leader and so-called Caliph AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi, a doctor in Islamic Studies, appears to disagrees with) labeling the threat as the International Jihadist Movement, as Min. Blaney did, speaks volumes. While some have portrayed this merely as a fight over semantics, the phrase “Global Jihadist Movement” is pregnant with vital information that is intentionally obscured by the phrase “violent extremism.” Min. Blaney’s simple identification of the threat tell us that:

1. The threat is global: Unlike President Obama, whose Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS seeks to limit U.S. options to just Iraq and Syria, we must recognize the global element of the threat is vital. Jihadists from Somalia to France and from Mali to Norway are all looking to harm the U.S. and their allies wherever they can. Unless our response is equally global, it can not succeed.

2. The threat is jihad: Our enemies say they are called to wage jihad, a term which is defined by Islamic law. Reliance of the Traveller (a reputable book of Shafi’i Islamic law) establishes that, “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” That many individuals who identify as Muslim may not subscribe to this doctrinal requirement is a positive, but nonetheless the preference of individuals does impede the significance of a doctrinal requirement that motivates a large segment of a population..

3. The threat is a movement. It is not merely ISIS which has declared war against us and must be combated. Rather our fight is with all those who subscribe to the movement’s ideology which obliges them to wage war in order to “establish the religion.” Individual groups and leaders may morph, change or evolve, but the ideological heart of the movement remains the same, and until that is addressed, we will not prove victorious. And as a movement, those responsible for spreading and indoctrinating the ideology are as important (if not more so) than the frontline jihadists who engage in fighting or acts of terror.

While Canada has initiated raids targeting groups linked to indoctrination and jihad, the Obama Administration and it’s Countering Violent Extremism effort continues to conduct outreach with them. This was most notable in the case of the Islamic Society of Boston, a mosque founded by a convicted AL Qaeda financier and Muslim Brother, which has been linked to a dozen individuals with terror ties, ranging from the chief jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf Al Qaradawi, to the Boston Marathon bombers, to a major Pakistani terror leader whose brother orchestrated the Mumbai massacre. And yet Boston was one of the cities cited as a model for the rest of the country by the CVE summit.

As Canada’s government is considering the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015, seeking to target those who conducted indoctrination, propaganda and support for terrorism, the President’s outreach partners, like Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslims Public Affairs Council, are looking for ways to hamper policing efforts, such as preventing law enforcement from using informants and targeting terror recruiters in mosques.

The Obama White House has finally released the names of the fourteen Muslim “leaders” who met with the President this past week. Among the group — which included a comedian, along with a hijab-wearing basketball player and a handful of left wing activists — were a select few individuals with disturbingly close ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood.

As previously uncovered by Breitbart News, the White House confirmed that Azhar Azeez, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was one of the Muslim leaders that met with President Obama. ISNA was founded in 1981 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. Federal prosecutors have previously described how ISNA funneled its money to Palestinian terrorist group Hamas (via Investigative Project):

ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” the original name for the HAMAS military wing. Govt. Exh. 1-174. From that ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to HAMAS leader…

Azeez’s bio also reveals him as a founding member the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter. CAIR has also allegedly funneled money to Palestinian terror groups and was also started by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In October, 2014, Azeez signed a letter endorsing Sharia Islamic governance. Under the Sharia, non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens. The Sharia also endorses the hudud punishments in the Koran and Hadiths, which state that apostasy from Islam is punishable by death.

Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) was also in attendance at the Muslim leaders’ meeting with President Obama.

MPAC, just like CAIR and ISNA, was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has written and often endorsed a paper rejecting the United States’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and has insisted that the Jewish state of Israel be added as a state sponsor of terrorism. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, has publicly encouraged officials to look at Israel as a suspect in the 9/11/01 attacks.

He has said that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel should be seen as “legitimate resistance.” In a 1998 speech at the National Press Club, an MPAC senior official described the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah as one that fights for “American values.” In an MPAC-sponsored March 2009 protest to “Defend al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Quds,” participants could be heard chanting slogans encouraging Palestinians to wipe out Israel. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” demonstrators chanted.

Mohamed Majid, who serves as Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), was also in attendance at the White House meeting with the President, and senior advisors Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett.

In 2002, ADAMS was raided as part of a U.S. government initiative called “Operation Green Quest,” where federal agents suspected the group of supporting terrorist organizations. Government documents said that the ADAMS Center was “suspected of providing support to terrorists, money laundering, and tax evasion.”

Majid is also an official with the brotherhood-affiliated Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

He also signed the October 2014 letter, along with White House meeting attendee Azhar Azeez, insisting that Sharia law should be an acceptable political system worldwide.

It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Islamic cleric (and Hitler admirer) Hassan al-Banna after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The group seeks as its end-game to install a Sunni Islamic caliphate throughout the world. al-Banna said of his organization’s goals, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood. Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The White House has still refused to name the “American Muslim leaders” with whom President Obama met to “discuss a range of domestic and foreign policy issues.”

According to a White House statement on the President’s meeting, the domestic issues discussed were the “Affordable Care Act, anti-Muslim violence and discrimination, the 21st Century Policing Task Force, and the upcoming White House Summit on Countering Violence Extremism.” On the foreign policy front, “the President discussed the need to continue countering ISIL and other groups that commit horrific acts of violence, purportedly in the name of Islam,” while also congratulating Muslims on their “remarkable contributions” to America.

Breitbart News has uncovered the names of four of the American Muslim leaders in attendance.

Comedian and left-wing pundit Dean Obeidallah revealed that he was one of the fifteen Muslim-American “leaders” brought to the White House on Wednesday afternoon.

“The No.1 issue raised: The alarming rise in anti-Muslim bigotry in America,” Obeidallah said of the meeting with the President. Their chief collective concern was not the rise of the Sunni Islamic State, nor the expansion of the Caliphatist Shiite Iranian regime and its messianic drive towards nuclear weapons, but instead, “anti-Muslim bigotry in America.”

Also at the event was Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). MPAC was founded by members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The group has written a position paper rejecting the United States’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and has insisted that the Jewish state of Israel be added as a state sponsor of terrorism. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, has also publicly entertained that Israel should be considered a suspect in the 9/11/01 attacks against America. He has said that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel should be seen as “legitimate resistance,” according to Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Foundation.

Elshishtawy revealed that Dr. Sherman Jackson, who serves as the King Faisal Chair of Islamic Thought at the University of Southern California, was also at the meeting. One lecture Dr. Jackson gave has been described as a “call to battle” between Muslims and the West.

Obeidallah also revealed that Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, was behind the effort to get Muslim leaders to the White House.

Muslim Advocates reveals on its website that its three main objectives are to “end profiling,” “strengthen [Muslim] charities,” and “counter hate.” Its Press Center section is filled with posts demanding intelligence organizations, such as the New York Police Department and federal agencies, end their “Muslim Suspicionless Spying Program,” while also dictating to the media that it should “Report Accurately on Muslims.” Another post reads, “What You Need to Know About the New Federal Racial Profiling Policy.” Review of Muslim Advocates’ press releases reveals that the only foreign policy issue with which the group has concerned itself over the past year was urging Sec. of State John Kerry to ensureMuslim “Americans are able to safely perform the annual religious Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia.”

Obeidallah does point out that Texas state Representative Molly White and others have made concerning remarks regarding the Muslim community. However, Obeidallah conflated anti-Muslim remarks with those criticizing Islam as a whole.

Hate crimes against Muslims remain a very small percentage of those that are religiously motivated. According to the latest FBI statistics, Muslims are victims of only 13.7 percent of religiously motivated hate crimes. American Jews remain almost five times more likelyto be victims of hate crimes than Muslims.

Bill O’Reilly hit the nail on the head in his opening monologue this evening, it was like as if he was reading our blog. Here is the opening monologue:

Then in his very next segment he invited on two stooges from the Council for Islamic Relations (CAIR) Hassam Ayloush and Haris Tarin of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Towards the end of the segment the CAIR stooge Hassam Ayloush justifies his position by criticizing the USA for “supporting the military coup in Egypt” that in itself was inaccurate, as we all know Obama did the opposite, I digress, but Bill interrupts then challenges Ayloush about going “against the Muslim brotherhood?” Bill sadly shows how uninformed he is on CAIR and MPAC as we have, as have many other counter Jihad experts exposed both CAIR and MPAC as strongly connected with the Muslim Brotherhood. Click here for proof on CAIR and proof that MPAC was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood So how can Bill expect leading members of the Muslim Brotherhood attack their own people as “murderers,” this is beyond naive.

This is the main problem with all the main stream media, in that they really do not do their homework and they still have the element of political correctness that cannot get to the whole truth to properly inform the American public.

Bill seems to have come along way in his understanding of the problem of Islam but when he invites members of the Muslim Brotherhood on his show and then condemns the Muslim Brotherhood to their face on air not realizing that they are Muslim Brotherhood, shows a level of ignorance that is sad and dangerous to eventually solving the problem of getting educated as to the realities of the apparent “moderate” Muslims who are actually more dangerous than the terrorists doing the killing as they undermine our defenses. The whole purpose of CAIR and MPAC is to tickle our ears and dumb down our thinking and finesse the real dangers we face. Bill knew they were BS-ing him, but he did not know that the organizations these people represent are the very people he unknowingly attacked.

Learn more about the stealth Jihad and the Muslim double talk and acquire the book the Case For Islamophobia, click here